SECTOR INFORMATION GROUP

1. SECTOR INFORMATION GROUP REPORT TO DSFG 2013-09-13

2. CONTEXT • Met 2013-07-12 • Volunteer group-Rose Renaud, Dave Round, Roy MacLeod, Casey Pruden, Flavian Pinto Wendy Larman, Ken Edwards

3. OBJECTIVES Objectives Develop meaningful indicators from the Q reports that the sector can use to • improve reporting • use as evidence to improve services • improve consistency across the sector

4. WORK DONE Group reviewed the cost profile report prepared by ministry for 2011-12 and the Q4 information shared by the agencies Frequency of sharing Q reports After discussion the group felt it would be most useful to share • Q3 reports-as a practice run and • Q4 reports as finals from which the final indicators would be drawn and compared to previous year Sector Concerns regarding costs In the past few years, sector has fallen further and further behind in receiving required funding to meet increasing costs Following factors have contributed to the sector falling further and further behind • No COLA adjustments to the base budgets • Salary increases in collective agreements have to be honored without increases in budgets • Program funded vacancies have had to be filled by individuals whose needs are higher but have no incremental funding provided • Individuals in service are aging and their increased needs have not received incremental funding

5. ISSUESRE INDICATORS Following issues were identified by the group • While the costs recorded are actuals they need to be compared against approved funding to identify the true shortfall in funding • Given that the ministry has prepared a cost profile report which identifies indicators of interest to it, sector should prepare and track the same indicators to meet the objectives stated above • Indicators that show the use of costs and resources should be matched or weighted against with support needs of individuals receiving support in order to obtain a balanced view of costs

6. INDICATORS TRACKED Indicators based on Ministry report • Cost breakdown by region • Cost breakdown by expense type • Total number of individuals served by region • Total number of program staff FTE by region • Total number of days of care by region • Total number of days of care by detail code • Total number of beds by region • Total number of beds by detail code • Annual cost breakdown (%) by detail code • Annual cost breakdown by expense Type (%) for each detail code • Cost breakdown by expense type (%) by detail code – up to 10mil, 10-45mil, >45mil • Range of unit costs by detail codes • Regional averages by detail code- annual cost/bed, annual cost/individual served, program staff cost/hour of program staff support, total cost/hour of program staff support

7. INDICATORS TRACKED 2 Indicators based on discussion to balance the costs • Total costs for ministry programs vs. total approved funding • Breakdown of individuals served by support needs –Low, medium, high • Breakdown of beds by support needs –Low, medium, High • Individuals/beds by need (Low, medium, high) matched against FTE and costs It was recognized that a rating weighting method need to be developed. For now the needs will be based on agencies identifying the need as such

8. NEXT STEPS NEXT STEPS • Casey will develop reports that capture as many indicators based on Q4 information shared by agencies for presentation at the September 13th DSFG meeting • Flavian will share this summary of the information group with the sector • Based on the discussion at DSFG meeting September 13th, revised extraction tool will be developed

9. QUESTIONSDISCUSSION ?